This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Larry Pile redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Larry Pile appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 May 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
This is for Xanthius and ClaudeReigns primarily. Xanthius said the last two criteria of what should be linked are satisfied by that link. If you'll notice the next to last says "neutral and accurate material". That is not what GCM warning is. More importantly, look above that on the WP:External Links page, and you'll see 'Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link" Then under the Links normally to be avoided section, you'll see "2.Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" and "11.Links to blogs and personal web pages". GCMWarning IS a self-published source that doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. Honestly, I thought we'd already established that long ago. Overall, I think this article's really well done though. Gatorgalen 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what has been done in other articles. If you'll show the articles where it is linked, I'll delete those as well. GCMWarning is a site that includes libelous accusations without base. It is as far as one can get from a reasonable source. Linkig to a site that includes libel is not acceptable. Those two parts you quoted are not to be taken alone, if you'll notice both before and after it gives seceptions. Again Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link". And, again, it is a personal web page, which we're also told not to link to. The guidelines are clear, you can't pick out one line and exclude the rest. Gatorgalen 03:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It is my understanding that [ GCM Warning] is not a personal page (as one might register for on Geocities or Angelfire) but a public interest site managed by several people. While there are discussion forums on that page, as well as current criticisms of Great Commission Association by recent and current members there, the article about Great Commission Association by Larry Pile is a thing in itself, a work which could be easily hosted at any website. The reliability standard is clearly applied to the source itself and not the website hosting it (i.e.: no one is citing the "libelous accusations without base" which you allude to). Contact Larry Pile if you seek further verification of the reliability of the article's rendering on GCM Warning. You'd think, though, that he'd have complained about its unreliability onsite if he had a problem with it, since he is occasionally a guest in its discussion forums. Larry Pile is an expert on cults according to several reliable sources and he has made a statement evaluating Great Commission Association. Are you calling this expert's evaluation libelous by association? I don't get it.
Finally.... What is a reliable source?
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.
Pile himself has editing experience and should be relied upon to check the facts of his information. The statement is therefore a reliable source. It meets all of the criteria. ClaudeReigns 08:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting view. Here's a quote from WP:Cite Sources - "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear." Basically, the statement is only as reliable as the website. The website is -10 on a reliability scale of 1 to 10. Linking to it is therefore a mistake. If someone has an actual copy of Pile's statement, or if he actually released in a way that it was published by a reliable source, then great, let's add it. I don't have a problem with the statement, it's good info for the article, but the problem is that we simply can't currently cite it. What audience was it given to? Who published it? Have any of us as editors actually seen it? These are important questions we can't ignore simply because we want it to be on there. Gatorgalen 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That would make sense. However, this isn't self-published; it was published by GCMWarning. Rather, it would seem to be personal correspondance between him and the editors of the page, which is different. Plus, given the non-RS nature of the page, how do we know it's accurate? Aksing him would be great, but I think we all realise that would be OR. Gatorgalen 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the self-published def. does include that. However, this doesn't fall under this - this isn't Larry's website. If it were, that would make it self-published. But since it's not, the only category it really falls under is personal correspondence. Do you see what I'm saying? Gatorgalen 04:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm sorry, but I really don't see where we're told that calling Larry is an option or a reliable way to verify sources. Where did you get this? That would certainly open up a whole new realm. Thanks for being cordial. Gatorgalen 04:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
He does not seem very notable except in the context of his employer Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center. Perhaps this article should be merged there. BayShrimp ( talk) 23:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Larry Pile redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Larry Pile appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 May 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
This is for Xanthius and ClaudeReigns primarily. Xanthius said the last two criteria of what should be linked are satisfied by that link. If you'll notice the next to last says "neutral and accurate material". That is not what GCM warning is. More importantly, look above that on the WP:External Links page, and you'll see 'Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link" Then under the Links normally to be avoided section, you'll see "2.Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" and "11.Links to blogs and personal web pages". GCMWarning IS a self-published source that doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. Honestly, I thought we'd already established that long ago. Overall, I think this article's really well done though. Gatorgalen 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what has been done in other articles. If you'll show the articles where it is linked, I'll delete those as well. GCMWarning is a site that includes libelous accusations without base. It is as far as one can get from a reasonable source. Linkig to a site that includes libel is not acceptable. Those two parts you quoted are not to be taken alone, if you'll notice both before and after it gives seceptions. Again Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link". And, again, it is a personal web page, which we're also told not to link to. The guidelines are clear, you can't pick out one line and exclude the rest. Gatorgalen 03:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It is my understanding that [ GCM Warning] is not a personal page (as one might register for on Geocities or Angelfire) but a public interest site managed by several people. While there are discussion forums on that page, as well as current criticisms of Great Commission Association by recent and current members there, the article about Great Commission Association by Larry Pile is a thing in itself, a work which could be easily hosted at any website. The reliability standard is clearly applied to the source itself and not the website hosting it (i.e.: no one is citing the "libelous accusations without base" which you allude to). Contact Larry Pile if you seek further verification of the reliability of the article's rendering on GCM Warning. You'd think, though, that he'd have complained about its unreliability onsite if he had a problem with it, since he is occasionally a guest in its discussion forums. Larry Pile is an expert on cults according to several reliable sources and he has made a statement evaluating Great Commission Association. Are you calling this expert's evaluation libelous by association? I don't get it.
Finally.... What is a reliable source?
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.
Pile himself has editing experience and should be relied upon to check the facts of his information. The statement is therefore a reliable source. It meets all of the criteria. ClaudeReigns 08:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting view. Here's a quote from WP:Cite Sources - "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear." Basically, the statement is only as reliable as the website. The website is -10 on a reliability scale of 1 to 10. Linking to it is therefore a mistake. If someone has an actual copy of Pile's statement, or if he actually released in a way that it was published by a reliable source, then great, let's add it. I don't have a problem with the statement, it's good info for the article, but the problem is that we simply can't currently cite it. What audience was it given to? Who published it? Have any of us as editors actually seen it? These are important questions we can't ignore simply because we want it to be on there. Gatorgalen 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That would make sense. However, this isn't self-published; it was published by GCMWarning. Rather, it would seem to be personal correspondance between him and the editors of the page, which is different. Plus, given the non-RS nature of the page, how do we know it's accurate? Aksing him would be great, but I think we all realise that would be OR. Gatorgalen 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the self-published def. does include that. However, this doesn't fall under this - this isn't Larry's website. If it were, that would make it self-published. But since it's not, the only category it really falls under is personal correspondence. Do you see what I'm saying? Gatorgalen 04:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm sorry, but I really don't see where we're told that calling Larry is an option or a reliable way to verify sources. Where did you get this? That would certainly open up a whole new realm. Thanks for being cordial. Gatorgalen 04:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
He does not seem very notable except in the context of his employer Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center. Perhaps this article should be merged there. BayShrimp ( talk) 23:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)